Deeper than primes

[The Man]

No The Man, you still do not understand that EEM will do its best in order to save and develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract), so the chance that EEM will consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical action, simply demonstrate your mechanical and excluded-middle reasoning about a concept like Complexity.

No it is simply a consequence of your “EEM” “goal to develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”. That “L value” outcome you fear still remains and in fact could become necessary by your own “EEM” to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.

Furthermore you still understand the internal dynamical forces that govern the behavior of our civilization (for example: Politics) as non self-made Force-majeure, so we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure.

Again where have I ever claimed “Politics) as non self-made”? let alone a “Force-majeure”? Though “we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity” as just “communication between opposites”. Considering that “communication between opposites” phrase in the context of politics, you do understand what diplomacy is, don’t you Doron? Is it a simple lack of you understanding aspects of context that apparently has you bandying about phrases like “communication between opposites” without any apparently applicable context?

That is not in the limited position of The Man's reasoning, will find that EEM is the last method that will be forced to consider the destruction of the entire human race in order to save Complexity.

Last method, perhaps but still an acceptable and ethical method by you own “EEM”. So your “EEM” specifically makes exactly what you fear (that “L value” outcome) both acceptable and ethical.

The current discommunication between Logics and Ethics is in a "better" position than EEM in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration, but persons like The Man, which understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure, can't get that.

“discommunication between Logics and Ethics”? You are still simply anthropomorphizing concepts Doron. “in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration”? That your “EEM” can consider such a reprehensible action as logical, acceptable and even ethical is exactly the goal you have constructed your “EEM” around. All your blustering about “discommunication between Logics and Ethics”, “communication between opposites” and “non self-made Force-majeure” can’t escape the fact that you are attempting to establish a “framework” (as you like to put it) that specifically permits your worst fear (that “L value” outcome) as an acceptable, logical, ethical and perhaps even necessary "last method" course of action for your goal to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.

 

[Complexity]

I saw a little girl riding a bicycle yesterday. She still had the training wheels on it, but I could tell that she was ready for her father to take them off.

Some people will need training wheels for the rest of their lives.

 

[jsfisher]

Some people can't ride a bicycle even with training wheels.

 

[The Man]

You are correct about me and the Buddhist approach.
But I'm not seeing that The Man has some kind of opposite extream view to mine. That would be something like everything is fixed in its true nature and change is just an illusion.
I don't know what his prefered philosophical stance is.

None in particular, though I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

No just that an infinite convergent series has finite sum. What would that have to do with "Binary Logics" anyway?

 

[Apathia]

None in particular, though I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.

Amen!

 

[doronshadmi]

A tool that “is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other”. You do understand that tools have intended uses and are designed with consideration of the goals in their usage, don’t you? Well thank you for finally admitting that since your “OM” has no or is not “a goal” that you intended it to be useless. Guess what, you succeeded.

Another example of The Man’s fixed-only reasoning, which ignores the way (the tool) to get sum result, and focused only on the result. By this fixed approach there are no several alternatives to get some goal, and we are closed under a single step-by-step reasoning that leads to some goal, and as a result the gaol itself is understood by a very narrow view. On the other hand, if some method is taken as a tool, then an open mind is used all along the way that enables to understand some goal beyond a single path.

Furthermore, by this open minded approach one can find more goals that are also considered along the way, and we get richer and more profound understanding of the researched subject.

Your “tool” has failed as it results in and is based upon a direct contradiction. You do understand that “opposites” are already ‘linked’ in a non-contradictory fashion by merely being, well, opposites, don’t you?

Defining a linkage is not limited to your step-by-step deductive reasoning.

Definition by OM also researches the fundamantal conditions that enable, for example, the linkage between opposites, where your step-by-step deductive reasoning gets this linkage as an axiom.

“communication between opposites”? Just how do you imagine these “opposites” ‘communicate’?

By their common source. for example: the local aspect of the atomic self-state is the opposite of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.

Yet the atomic self-state is their common source that enables the non-destructive linkage (communication) between them.

“mutual destruction between opposite”? How is that ‘avoided’ in binary logic when True AND False is False. Just what do you think is “opposites' communication”

The included middle universe between them.

Where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."? It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.

Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics. The same holds about included middle framework.

OM deals with both frameworks by OR connective between them.

In my opinion you should actually try studying logic. “technology of the consciousness”? Got any examples of such technology or are you just “focused on” something you made up in your own mind? Again just how do “opposites” ‘communicate’ ? You seem to be simply anthropomorphizing aspects of logic like opposites.

Transcendental Meditation (or other scientifically researched mind training techniques) is an example of “technology of the consciousness”.

Opposites are simply the extreme manifestations of a one atomic self-state.

So you think “opposites” are ‘communicating’ to you or with you (as some included middle I surmise) thorough your “direct perception” and feeding you your “non-local numbers or fogs” nonsense? If that is the case I would add you getting a shrink to my suggestions.

Direct perception is not a thought, but it is the foundation of thoughts, you are the one who needs a shrink here because your awareness is disconnected from its source, and gets only the differential state of thoughts, without their integral state. An extreme differential state between thought is known as Schizophrenia, where different groups of thoughts have their own personality. Excluded-Middle reasoning as one and only one thinking styles, actually base on extreme differentiation between opposites (where the middle is excluded).

Certainly “Redundancy” and/or “Simultaneity” has no bearing on a “fixed results (like sums…”, but “Uncertainty” certainly can and that simply makes the resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty

“resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty” is done under finite terms. Infinite terms are valued by fogs.

So now computers have “ethical skills”?

You do not understand the meaning of being an agent of ...

The suggestions have already been given to you, whether you have a shrink or not I still recommend them. Also as I said above I would recommend you getting a shrink if you think opposites are ‘communicating’ and in particular if you think they are ‘communicating’ to or with you.

The Man your posts become more and more pathetic. You can simply say that you have no answer to my question.

Go back and do it again as you have obviously missed or simply misunderstood majoer portions, concepts and developments.

You never re-searched your axioms. It is a good idea to that from time to time. Maybe if you really do that you will find that they have simpler foundations. But this re-reach is not for lazy or coward persons.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it is simply a consequence of your “EEM” “goal to develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”. That “L value” outcome you fear still remains and in fact could become necessary by your own “EEM” to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.

And what are your consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using your pragmatic approach?

Again where have I ever claimed “Politics) as non self-made”?

Here:

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme…

Where extreme means that Politics is some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it.

without any apparently applicable context?

EEM is about developing Ethics according universal principles that are not limited to any particular context.

So your “EEM” specifically makes exactly what you fear (that “L value” outcome) both acceptable and ethical.

No, it reduces as much as possible results that derived from fears, exactly because it is not based on fragmented contexts that do not understand each other, and this misunderstanding is the habitat of fears.

You are still simply anthropomorphizing concepts Doron.

You simply understand Complexity only by your narrow context that is limited to Humankind. As a result you do not get Complexity by Ethics that is not limited to any particular context like Humankind, for example. Again The Man by your context dependent view, What You Is What You Get (WYIWYG), which is exactly your fragmented and context dependent view about Ethics.

"Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and you The Man are tend to be pragmatist:

I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.

People don’t often fit into neat categories exactly because Complexity is not limited to particular persons or context dependent frameworks.

Your view about usefulness is limited to the current knowledge of a given notion, which has the tendency to reject any notion that can’t immediately valued by your current knowledge.

In other words, you have a very limited understanding of real Complexity, which does not obey to your immediate usefulness demands.

 

[doronshadmi]

No just that an infinite convergent series has finite sum.

No, an infinite collection of positive or negative added values is a fog.

Your pragmatist tendency does not help you to get fogs.

 

[doronshadmi]

Amen!

Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

 

[jsfisher]

Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

Must you strive to make everything some sort of insult?

 

[doronshadmi]

Must you strive to make everything some sort of insult?

Why insult?

"Amen!" is a common religious reaction.

 

[Apathia]

Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

In American English the word "amen" has become secularized. Even Atheists use it as an expression of enthusiastic agreement.

At the moment I made a choice between "amen!" and "correctomondo!"
I felt "Amen!" had more weight, because it is an ethical value for me to listen to what a person is saying and try not to dismiss hir into a political, religious, or philosophical pigeon hole. (That's what The Man was talking about in his post.)
And I truly regret every time I've done that.

To some extent religion is a language for expressing spiritual values.
And both you and I have spoken religion.
I'm sorry if what I've been saying amounts to a dismissal of your ideas because they are "just a religion."
I see that you and I have many spiritual values in common, just not the way they are expressed and philosophically configured.
Yes, I have offered an alternative way of speaking.
But understand I don't mean it as a dismissal of your values.
And I'm not telling you you are wrong to express them in the way that seems to you to be the most comprehensive.
Also I am partial to the Mahayana Buddhist Philosophical tradition in a secular way. But it's not a dogma for me but a tool to let go of intellectual attachments.

Have I been smugly condescending with an air of intellectual superiority?
Probably.
I apologize.

I can't apologize that we disagree.
I don't disagree with you a you.
But I disagree that spiritual values can be logicized.
I disagree that personhood and subjectivity (seeing as an I) can be objectified in a mathematical framework.
(There's no way of doing statistics where the people counted are being related to as personal subjects at the same time. At best we can remember that we are counting people and the numbers are going into tools to help us help them.)
I disagree that ought can be reduced to is.

So how do I have any kind of unified framework?
Personally I acknowledge three aspects of Knowing.
1.) Objective knowledge about objects, things, matters. Science and Mathematics.
2.) Knowing another as a person, not as a he, she, it, or a Sally, but as an I in hir own right. (N.B. this is not knowledge about a person.)
3.) Knowing as Integration and participation in an inseparable whole.
(Again I must stress that this is not a different kind or source of objective knowledge content.)

Each operates in its own relational sphere for the sake of our complete humanity.
Their roles aren't mixed, anymore than the nervous system does digestion, or the skull tries to be a foot.

Knowledge is a way of relating.

Science and Math: relating to objects of knowledge. (And that already includes in contemporary physics the understanding that there is not a strict separation of observer and observed, and the mathematical quantum mechanics to handle that.)

Sympathetic Community: where I relate to you as an I, not an object of knowledge (though I may know many things about you.)
Integral Union: Where all things are one in Being (Or in the emptiness of inherent being) Where I don't Know you as you, but we are of one being.

This is a crude and simplistic parsing of roles. I could expand it into four.
But that's the idea. Nothing is left out of our humanity, and no one aspect swallows up or dismisses the other.
We use all aspects of Knowing to create our communal ethical values.

The path of our survival as a species is growing all aspects of our humanity.

But this isn't something to be advanced as a religion.
It's what we already do and do better with a sound education.

 

[doronshadmi]

I've said that treating infinity as a complete is more comapatble with the Buddhist perspective, for in the Buddhist perspective infinity is not a metaphysical entity and finding that the finite is within the infinite and the infinite within the finite is almost expected.

"finite within the finite and infinite within the finite" is a meaningless phrase if you don’t say first what do you mean by "finite" or "infinite".

If you are using the Buddhist perspective, then by understanding Locality/Non-locality Linkage you get the unlimited changing, which is derived from the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local.

In this case you are focused only on the result (infinite Complexitiy, in this case) by ignoring its foundations.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also I am partial to the Mahayana Buddhist Philosophical tradition in a secular way.

The real Buddhist says: "If you meat Buddha along the road, kill him", which means: "Never say amen even not to Buddha himself, because the essence of Buddhism is to be always the mind of the beginner, which always re-researches already agreed notions."

 

[doronshadmi]

But I disagree that spiritual values can be logicized.
I disagree that personhood and subjectivity (seeing as an I) can be objectified in a mathematical framework.

Why do you force a local-only view on OM?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm going to advise people not to respond to this thread. doronshadmi has a history of being totally incomprehensible and his threads always go for dozens of pages without any progress being made.

Doron, you are misusing common terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiset

I will not be replying to this thread any more.

You called that one nicely, as we are on page 240 (at 40 posts per page).

Give this man a cigar.

DR

 

[Apathia]

"finite within the finite and infinite within the finite" is a meaningless phrase if you don’t say first what do you mean by "finite" or "infinite".

If you are using the Buddhist perspective, then by understanding Locality/Non-locality Linkage you get the unlimited changing, which is derived from the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local.

In this case you are focused only on the result (infinite Complexitiy, in this case) by ignoring its foundations.

That has it's utiliity,
But the Buddhist perspective isn't really comfortable with an unchanging, changeless foundation one can cling to.

But let's talk "fog."
Your post suggests that a fog isn't a static region of indeterninancy, but a dance that's so quick that there's no determining the exact loication of the dancer.

 

[doronshadmi]

"Science and Math:" … "Sympathetic Community:"

OM uses direct perception as the common source of them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Give this man a cigar.

DR

Smoking is not allowed in a public forum

 

[Apathia]

Why do you force a local-only view on OM?

Then you must cease calling OM a "Mathematcs." Your philosophy can't possibly be cramed into that discipline.
And if you insist on continuing to use mathematical language this way, you need to admit to your readers that youv are not talking about the same thing they are accustomed to.

But it seems to me that you keep insisting that you are providing with your OM a Logic of ethical values as well as mathimatical truth values.
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.